Talk:Stalin Note

No reason fordoubt the soviets were honestly begging.
Stalin was dead serious. A western person can not understand the sheer amount of destruction the USSR had seen in WWII, the country barely stood and the russian nation was exhausted and never fully recovered since. A proven neutral Germany could prevent a reoccurance of attack forever. The last thing they wanted was an arms race and contentious division in the middle of Europe.

Also, Stalin was never a "world-revolutionary", unlike the "true communists" (especially Trotski, whom he had assasinated). Stalin was kind of an isolationist, who wanted the USSR and a single ring of "border sealing" satellite states so that his communist totalitarian regime could continue unhindered behind the buffer and cared little about exporting the red banner to non-adjacent places.

If you consider, the west's fears of Red Army invading France, Britain or similar developed country are absurd, how could they control and hold those countries where people's heads have long been filled with stupid ideas of democracy and free enterprise? Stalin only wanted the eastern european countries, which barely left fief-and-lords societies and so their population was quite receptive to communist ideology. The GDR was almost entirely demolished (most allied carpet bombing hit the east part of Germany and really bad ground combat happened there) and its limited industrial and mindskill potential (only 1/4 area and people of West germany) was not worth the trouble for Stalin. By 1953 there were monthly anticom riots in East Germany.

I see no problem with Stalin wanting a unified, neutral, social-democrat limited market economy Germany much like a beer-drinking Finland. People like Churchill are responsible for spreading the false image of Alexander Stalin the world conquerer. He had enough subjects to torture and terrorize domestically. 195.70.32.136 16:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right:

1. East German economic Reconstruction was too much expensive. It was profitable taking German high tech and factories to the USSR. It was profitable taking scientists and ideas...but not rebuilding East Germany, as the USSR was forced to do finally to face NATO.

2. Merging East Germany with a much larger West Germany to create a neutral state similar to Finland, with a market economy but essential trade relationship with the USSR, it would be worth it. It wouldn´t pose a problem but a benefit, both economic and political. No NATO forces in the larger Western part of Germany and Trade (as Finland with the USSR or Hong Kong with China)

So, yes, probably Stalin was telling the truth and he did prefer a unifed neutral Germany with an economy strong enough to pay billions in War compensations to the USSR instead of becoming a liability as the DDR became.--81.36.211.93 (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC) OK, seriously,

Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and the Western Powers saw Stalin’s move as an aggressive action that attempted to stall the integration of the German Republic into the West. This is the prevailing opinion in current historical scholarship. However, a minority suggests that perhaps Stalin was making a sincere offer. That is remarkably poor analysis. Stalin's sincerity and the aggressiveness of that are not mutually exclusive.

Material Added from German Version
Per a translation request this article has had quite a bit added to it. However, because the original German article did not have citations, this article is lacking citations as well. --it definitely needs some citations-- --Eronoel 04:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Reason for negotiations failing
"On September 15, 1951, the East German government offered to discuss holding elections at a meeting with West Germany. However, the West German government refused to hold talks with the SED because this would have meant the actual recognition of East Germany as an equal country. Contact was always maintained through the Western Powers. Instead, West Germany wanted a commission of the United Nations to check whether or not free all-German elections were possible."

"Instead, both of the German states should be responsible for creating a commission with equal representation. However, this had already been refused by the West in 1951."

It appears that the reasons given for the refusal of the fourth note were this "recognition of East Germany". East Germany was willing to talk, West Germany wasn't; the Soviet Union did not view the UN as an acceptable mediating force (probably because of the war in Korea), while the Western countries did see it as acceptable, and their view was "if the Soviet Union doesn't want the UN to help, then it's not an important issue". By offering to talk to West Germany, East Germany was offering 'recognition' of the type that West Germany (influenced by Western countries) refused to offer to East Germany.

The summary for the second note says, "The matter of dispute remained: free elections first (West) or peace treaty negotiations first (Soviet Union)." This seems to have been important because "peace treaty" meant whether territories should be transferred between Germany, Poland, and the Soviet Union based on the Oder–Neisse line and Curzon Line. The US did not explicitly accept the Oder–Neisse line but agreed to "support revision of these frontiers in Poland's favor", and France and the UK probably had similar attitudes. But then after the end of WWII, they started treating the Soviet Union as an enemy. The root cause being that, like most previous territorial gains, it was acquired by conflict and the nations that formed the United Nations (that is, the nations that were the Allied powers in WWII) did not try to say that "all territorial gains made during WWII are invalid". War had previously been outlawed by various treaties in 1929 or so, but the nations making up the UN tried to say "we just profited from a war, but no one is allowed to try to do the same or contest the results of that war." None of the victorious nations involved were interested in returning borders to what they were before WWII, say in 1930. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:2C95:78CF:EFD6:B2B6 (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Quotes from James Warburg
I have just removed two of the three uncited quote templates attached to the quote from James Warburg. As it is recorded who said it (Warburg), where they said it (the Foreign Relations Committee), and when they said it (28th March 1952) I regard the uncited quote templates as superfluous. However, it would defiantly be best to track down the transcripts of the meeting to defiantly ensure that the quote is accurate. That said, I am not entirely sure who keeps US congress transcripts. Do you have an equivalent of Hansard? I have e-mailed the US national archives and I hope that they'll be getting back to me but if any of you people have any advice that'd be appreciated. Thanks, El komodos drago (talk to me) 19:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is the reply I received from the NARA.
 * Thank you for contacting the National Archives. Your inquiry was forwarded to the Center for Legislative Archives, NARA.


 * I suggest finding a library that has a subscription to ProQuest Congressional's hearing database. This is the best way to find transcripts of congressional hearings. For more information, please read How to Locate a Published Congressional Hearing and How to Locate an Unpublished Congressional Hearing.


 * It's possible related documents are located in the records of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 82nd Congress (SEN82A-F8). Unfortunately, our research room is closed due to the coronavirus public health emergency. We are also unable to conduct general research and process large copy orders at this time. I recommend checking our website periodically for updates: https://www.archives.gov/coronavirus
 * Sheesh, American records are hard to find. El komodos drago (talk to me) 19:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a U.S. senator
Article now (as of 13 Oct 22) says Warburg was a "member" of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This is patently incorrect, as he was never a member of the U.S. Senate, or, as far as I know, the holder of any elected office. The confusion seems to be that he did make an appearance before that body, but as an expert witness. I was hoping to have someone with more expertise to make the edit rather than be bold. 2600:1004:B162:F8A1:0:4B:2FB0:8C01 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)